Re: 7 hrs for a pg_restore?

On Tuesday 19 February 2008 15:07:30 Jeff wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > maintenance_work_mem, to be more specific.  If that's too small it
> > will
> > definitely cripple restore speed.  I'm not sure fsync would make much
> > difference, but checkpoint_segments would.  See
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/populate.html#POPULATE-PG-
> > DUMP
>
> I wonder if it would be worthwhile if pg_restore could emit a warning
> if maint_work_mem is "low" (start flamewar on what "low" is).
>
> And as an addition to that - allow a cmd line arg to have pg_restore
> bump it before doing its work?  On several occasions I was moving a
> largish table and the COPY part went plenty fast, but when it hit
> index creation it slowed down to a crawl due to low maint_work_mem..

fwiw, I +1 this

now that I have a (minor) understanding of what's going on, I'd love to do
something like:
pg_restore -WM $large_value <normal options>


--
Douglas J Hunley (doug at hunley.homeip.net) - Linux User #174778
http://doug.hunley.homeip.net

There are no dead students here. This week.